Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Dreadful News Regarding Self Driving Cars

The news regarding self driving cars is turning dreadful. Yes that is right. The technology is limited today, but in the future, it will most likely cause suffering, fear and/or unhappiness.

So, how could that be? Aren't we taught that technology represents progress? Well, in the case of self driving cars we may be looking at technology that could result in a massive regression. No, I am not talking about the bad movie, either. Before discussing the technology of Baidu (BIDU), Google (GOOGL), and Tesla (TSLA) at the end of this article, two developments must be considered.

Perhaps the two most troubling developments are being pressed by Google, Inc, and as we will see later, by Baidu:

1.Google has petitioned the NHTSA for the right to develop driverless cars that cannot be overridden by human judgement. The NHTSA has opened the door to that possibility. Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelly Blue Book has said in this Reuters article:

"NHTSA is prepared to name artificial
intelligence as a viable alternative to human-controlled vehicles, it
could substantially streamline the process of putting autonomous
vehicles on the road,"

The NHTSA's letter says:

"NHTSA will interpret 'driver' in the context of
Google's described motor vehicle design as referring to the
(self-driving system), and not to any of the vehicle occupants,"

This means, of course, that vehicle occupants will not be considered drivers and will not be able to override the system. The Reuters article goes on to reveal an astounding insight:

Google told NHTSA that the real danger is having auto safety features that could tempt humans to try to take control.

This should tell you that Google seeks to develop cars that give drivers no power to brake or to control a steering wheel. In fact, those manual systems will not exist. This of course flies in the face of an action by the State of California, which has passed a law requiring all driverless cars to have steering wheels and the ability of real people to override the system.

2. Google wants to be able to communicate directly with the automatic pilot. That means their cars will not be autonomous. These cars will be controlled by centralized computers. The Reuters article cited above offers this as proof:

If the car's computer is the driver for legal
purposes, then it clears the way for Google or automakers to design
vehicle systems that communicate directly with the vehicle's artificial
pilot.

Google is doing the bidding, in my opinion of the NSA. Forbes Dale Buss agrees. This technology is not a driverless, autonomous car. It is a driverless, centrally controlled car, which will let NSA know where you go and when you go there. This is big brother like few could have predicted.

The government, since the Patriot Act, seems to be hell bent on expanding a spy network to track everyone, whether through cashless payment systems, driverless cars, cellphone interception, through hacking your devises, and on and on. This is becoming a disturbing development and is likely to accompany any development of faux autonomous cars.

And the cars themselves are not beyond being hacked. Some say they could be hacked more easily than manually driven cars! Criminal hacking, as well as foreign government operatives hacking into the system, are just two major concerns. From the Guardian, experts have weighed in:

Human-controlled cars will eventually be forbidden to drive on the road,
Hypponen said, except for on racetracks. Matus said the same was
certainly true of horses, suggesting yet another future threat to
electronically controlled cars that could be harder to detect. “If you
wanted to slow US GDP, all you would have to do is increase the commute
time in every urban environment by 15 minutes. Just tweak a few cars, or
get one to put on the brake … even if these things happen a few times,
it will affect the confidence of consumers.”

Of course, we know that Tesla's Elon Musk has called for the ban of manually driven cars once self driving cars are perfected. Here is one example of that and he has actually called for the ban twice.

The argument is made about the danger of manually driven cars. It is somehow more dangerous for humans to make errors of judgement than machines.

But really, the real reason for this major push for self driving cars is control. Big brother wants control. It goes along with empire. The globalists want more control, it is that simple. All other arguments are secondary.

As far as the technology is concerned, there are differences between Tesla's version and the Google version of self driving cars. Tesla appears to be using technology that would allow the autos to be overridden by human drivers, in the event of confusion on the part of the auto technology. Cameras are the eyes of the car.

Google, on the other hand, wants completely autonomous cars with technology that appears to be centralized. Google also uses LIDAR laser technology, which allows cars to drive in the dark.

And of course, the LIDAR technology is expensive, and few will be able to afford it when it is developed.

Elon Musk may want all cars to be self driving, but with the capability of human override, at least for the near future. But Google seems to be developing total big brother control and direct communication with the cars as they are in operation. And Baidu is aiming for cars that have preset routes for cars! That is a dreadful development, indeed. From the Motley Fool:

Baidu aims
to bring fully autonomous shuttles to Chinese roads by the end of 2018.
The vehicles would drive a pre-set route that would be expanded over
time.
The tech giant is also lobbying both the Chinese and U.S. governments
for improved driverless auto regulation. Baidu was part of a U.S.
Senate Commerce Committee a few months ago -- along with Google and General Motors --
advocating for looser autonomous vehicle regulations. The company is
trying to pave the way for its own driverless car testing in the U.S.

These companies mentioned in this article are likely to ride periods of momentum as they pursue these technologies, at least until mankind rejects the projects as being truly regressive to the human spirit.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Join Talkmarkets for Financial Information. It is free! https://goo.gl/QZff5YI have written a lot of vetted articles that are exclusive** to Talkmarkets. Sorting a portion of them by subject will give the reader an opportunity to make sense of it all. I am adding a glossary of terms at the bottom of this page.For readers interested in economic subjects of the day, these top 30 themes are my efforts to make understanding economics easier:I have pinned the following article to the top because it is an insight into my personal life, as well as a commentary on isms. Capitalism is still the greatest system for creating wealth. However, it is often mixed, and mixturism is a factor in its success or failure:

There is further study in the articles I have cited for you at the end of this article. People must, must understand that Donald Trump is a divider of races and ethnicity, because at heart he is a fascist. Fascism seeks the purity of the races. Fascism is the opposite of what America stands for. Keep in mind that Donald Trump is highly influenced by Anarcho Capitalist, Murray Rothbard. This is an email I sent to an author online. It is slightly muddled, but overall quite accurate in its assessment of Libertarian Murray Rothbard:

Hi Steve,
I agree with your article on Rothbard, mostly. However, as a British court ruled, Zionism is not the essence of what it means to be Jewish. Therefore, I hate antiSemitism, and embrace antiZionism. I have both religious and non religious reasons for taking this stand. And the court absolves me of racism. After all my natural father was Jewish. And more and more Jews hate Zionism. And Zionism is quite multiracial at this point.
So, Trump actually is …

John Mauldin published an article regarding the economics of Donald Trump. I share many of his views. I think the article deserves to be discussed further.

It isn't as if John Mauldin is happy with the continual drive toward negative yields and the new normal. I believe he is like many, willing to fight for higher interest rates within reason and within the economic boundaries that exist. He is on board with the Fed, unlike other central banks, and is willing to risk recession to avoid negative rates:

Meanwhile, the Fed is in the middle of a long-overdue policy turn. There’s still a risk that they will find they started tightening just in time for a recession, which is also long overdue. I was convinced last summer that they would push rates negative in that scenario. Negative rates could yet happen, but I think they wi…